Bilhah & Zilpah

[Anonymous]

Hello !
I was told in a post today that Leah's & Rachel's maidservants Bilhah & Zilpah were not truly Jacob's wives and that they didn't even have any right to the children they gave birth to ?
Any opinions on this ?

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[steve]

in my understanding concubines are a form of wife with some legal distinctions.

something nagging at the back of my mind, did not jacob later refer to one of them as his wife? not sure

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

3 “Reuben, you are my firstborn,
my might, the first sign of my strength,
excelling in honor, excelling in power.
4 Turbulent as the waters, you will no longer excel,
for you went up onto your father’s bed,
onto my couch and defiled it.
Genesis 49:3-4 NIV 2010

While Israel was living in that region, Reuben went in and slept with his father’s concubine Bilhah, and Israel heard of it.

Jacob had twelve sons:
Genesis 35:22 NIV 2010

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

in my understanding concubines are a form of wife with some legal distinctions.

something nagging at the back of my mind, did not jacob later refer to one of them as his wife? not sure

If she was the property of Jacob's wife, then when Jacob's wife gave her to Jacob to marry he was married to her based on the rules of Exodus 21:7-11.

 

[Anonymous]

Genesis 30:4
And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her.

Gen 30:9
When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife.

 

[Isabella]

I know they were called 'Maidservants' but they were slaves, they did not have any rights and they had to do their mistresses bidding. So, the word 'Give' is descriptive, they were given, as property, their role changed, they were no longer just the maids of the wives but the concubines of the husband. As slaves they have no property, everything they own belongs to their owners, including their children, that was the whole point of Rachel doing it in the first place, she wanted a child and was using her slave to (in effect) act as surrogate.

It might seem unpalatable to modern tastes but slaves were slaves and just because the women were not treated badly (as far as you know from the text) doesn't mean that those women had any right to say no, or any right to raise and mother the children they had.

B

 

[steve]

thought so, thanks john.
in the narrative the sons are all considered josephs brothers, there is no distinction between them. and while the tribes of rachel's sons were considered special, the tribes of the slave-wives are not considered as lower class as far as i have seen.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

thought so, thanks john.
in the narrative the sons are all considered josephs brothers, there is no distinction between them. and while the tribes of rachel's sons were considered special, the tribes of the slave-wives are not considered as lower class as far as i have seen.

When I look at the different orders the lists of descendants of Jacob are in and the specific sins and special deeds specific people on the line committed and the order of birth when children are listed by mother and order of marriage of women and which woman is under which woman sometimes I find quite interesting orders.

 

[steve]

When I look at the different orders the lists of descendants of Jacob are in and the specific sins and special deeds specific people on the line committed and the order of birth when children are listed by mother and order of marriage of women and which woman is under which woman sometimes I find quite interesting orders.

true, the women did have differing dispositions and it carried in their lineage, but it appeares to be classless.

 

[VictorLepanto]

Genesis 30:4
And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her.

Gen 30:9
When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife.

It is gross misrepresentation of the story to quote 30:4 w/o quoting 30:3:

And she said, Behold my maid [that is amah -a female slave/Evan being a male slave], go inot her; and she shall bear uponmy knees,that I may have children by her.

As for the word translated as "wife," the Hebrews have no distinct word for wife. They simple use the Hebrew word isha, meaning woman, to refer to wives.

"Wife" here is being used as an infinitive. It is being used as a kind of verb. Rather like, make a woman of her, or use her like a woman.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Everyone,

There were a bunch of interesting thoughts in all this about whether Bilhah & Zilpah had any marital rights as wives or not. I'll just add my two cents, to hopefully spice up the conversation...

First, we should get a bit of confusion out of the way. The word "wife" is not really found in Scripture. Where English translations say "wife", we need to read "woman".

In other words, it tells us whose woman a woman was. Translators are the ones to select "wife" in the passages, so we need to be careful not to write too much into the word "wife" in a passage until we've carefully examined it.

For men it was a bit different. Yes, sometimes it said whose man a man was, but often it used the term "master" or "lord" which has been translated "husband" by the translators. Again, it is important to fully grasping the meaning of a passage to know what the underlying words may be for "husband".

Knowing what "concubines" were and what their legal or social status may have been is more difficult. The Bible pretty much expects us to know what a concubine is, without providing an exact definition. We also have to understand that things changed over time. The definition of "concubine" may have changed in some ways over the years, between the first occurrence in Scripture and the definition of "concubine" as used in the Mosaic Law, and even beyond that.

Genesis 25:1 tells us that Abraham took a "wife" named Keturah. However, just a few verses later Keturah (along with Hagar) is called a "concubine" (also 1 Chronicles 1:32). So a concubine WAS a man's woman (we would say "wife"). Therefore, a concubine was a type of wife.

The next question is that of ownership. It seems that where we read about concubine's origins, they are consistently portrayed as slaves or former slaves. So who then "owned" the concubines after they were married, if they were given to their husbands by their wives. Along with that question is who "owned" them if the wife gave the concubine to the husband for the express purpose of raising up children for herself.

Bilhah (Genesis 29:29), Zilpah (Genesis 29:24), and Hagar (Genesis 16:1) were all slaves and were all concubines. Even though these are the only concubines I could discover where their origin were plainly stated, it seems fairly safe to suggest that concubines were former slave women, and as such their children had a secondary marital status when it came to inheritance rights for their children alone. (This may have been because most non-slave wives were exchanged for a dowry to their parents rather than purchased as a slave.)

In all other ways, concubines seemed to have the same rights as wives, as will be seen below.

Slave women could be gotten from battles with enemy nations (Numbers 31:18), by purchase from surrounding nations or the sojourners among them (Leviticus 25:44-46), and from their own countrymen (Exodus 21:7). These could all be taken as wives by Israelite men.

However, based on the concept that concubines were slaves before marriage, they did have the same basic rights as other wives:

"And if a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no power to sell her to a strange nation, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her as with daughters. If he takes himself another wife, her food, her clothing, and her duty of marriage shall not be lessened. And if he does not do these three to her, then she shall go out free without money." (Exodus 21:7-11)

"When you go forth to war against your enemies, and Jehovah your God has delivered them into your hands and you have taken them captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire to her, that you would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house. And she shall shave her head and dress her nails. And she shall put off the clothing of her captivity, and shall remain in your house, and shall sorrow for her father and her mother a full month. And after that you shall go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go where she will. But you shall not sell her at all for silver, you shall not make a slave of her, because you have humbled her." (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

Here we see that concubines had the right to a fair amount of food, clothing, and sexual intercourse (i.e., "duty of marriage"), and if she was not treated fairly, then she would be set free, and she could not be sold but would have to divorce her and set her free.

So concubines really did not differ much from wives UNDER THE MOSAIC LAW, maybe even more than before the Law. The Law does not appear to forbid concubines' children inheritance rights, but I'm not entirely certain about this. The Law doesn't appear to distinguish between wives obtained normally or wives obtained from slavery. Firstborns still appear to have had firstborn rights, and rationally the other would have had the normal inheritance rights as well.

But what about BEFORE the Law, such as the case with Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar, or Jacob and his wives and concubines?

Sarah gave Hagar her slave to Abraham (Genesis 16:3). Both Bilhah and Zilpah were given to Laban's daughters (Genesis 29:24, 29). It seems that this was a transfer of ownership, because the original owners do not seem to have retained ownership.

If we read the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar, we see that Sarah owned Hagar, but gave her to Abraham, then Hagar conceived then despised Sarah. Sarah was angry about the way she was being treated, but it is instructive to note that Sarah could not retaliate against Hagar until Abraham allowed her to do so (Genesis 16:6), which indicates that she no longer belonged to Sarah.

Even though Scripture calls Sarah Hagar's "mistress" which is the same as "master", but female, that seems to have more of the meaning "former mistress", because Sarah had no authority over her.

When Abraham told Sarah she could do what she wanted to Hagar, she then felt she had the authority to treat her harshly. So Hagar fled, but God told her to return and submit to Sarah.

Now in this it seems to me that all three acted sinfully. Hagar acted sinfully when she despised her sisterwife Sarah. Abraham sinned when he failed to treat her as a wife (which he would have had to do under the Mosaic Law which came much later), and gave Sarah permission to do what she wanted to Hagar. Sarah sinned both by influencing Abraham to do wrong, and in maltreating Hagar. Nothing in that account indicates that Abraham and Sarah had a right to treat Hagar the way they did. If we base the morality of the situation on either the greatest commandments--which have always been valid--or upon the commandments in the Law regarding how to treat a concubine as a wife, neither Abraham nor Sarah had any right to act as they had done.

Bilhah and Zilpah were both given to Jacob as his wives (i.e. "as his women") (Genesis 30:4, 30:9). It is obvious from the account that both Rachel and Leah felt that they in some way would be "mothers" or at least very involved in the life of their former slaves' children. It appears that they gave the slaves to Jacob under specific conditions--like a contractual deal--where they would consider their former slaves' children as their own, including inheritance rights. I have no idea if that was a common practice or not.

There is no information on whether either of these cases--Abraham's or Jacob's--are the common practice of the time. Both cases involved sinful actions on the part of most or all of the individuals involved. We don't know that concubinage was handled the same that early prior to the Mosaic Law, but we can tell that the practices did not meet with the requirements of the Law. Therefore, the actions of those people while in polygamy do not represent how polygamy ought to be.

Fairlight, you asked,

I was told in a post today that Leah's & Rachel's maidservants Bilhah & Zilpah were not truly Jacob's wives and that they didn't even have any right to the children they gave birth to ?
Any opinions on this ?

According to what I have researched in those accounts, concubines are fully wives as much as any other wife.

As far as their rights to their children, nothing indicates whether they had rights to their children or not. However, given the attitude of God towards parents and their children in Scripture, I believe that Bilhah and Zilpah both had full rights as mothers of their own children. Rachel and Leah, in my opinion, only conferred inheritance rights upon their former slaves' children in their names. Nothing in that account suggests that Rachal and Leah functioned as mothers to their former slaves' children. Instead, Bilhah and Zilpah were with their own children when Jacob went to meet Esau, which leads me to believe that they were always fully mothers of their own children.

Isabella, you said,

I know they were called 'Maidservants' but they were slaves, they did not have any rights and they had to do their mistresses bidding. So, the word 'Give' is descriptive, they were given, as property, their role changed, they were no longer just the maids of the wives but the concubines of the husband. As slaves they have no property, everything they own belongs to their owners, including their children, that was the whole point of Rachel doing it in the first place, she wanted a child and was using her slave to (in effect) act as surrogate.

It might seem unpalatable to modern tastes but slaves were slaves and just because the women were not treated badly (as far as you know from the text) doesn't mean that those women had any right to say no, or any right to raise and mother the children they had.

According to the reading of the account of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar, Sarah had no authority over Hagar, until Abraham later gave it to her. This indicates that the "giving" confers ownership. However, within the Law, concubines are full wives--the only difference POSSIBLY being that their children don't have inheritance rights, though this is debatable.

DiscussingTheTopic and Steve,

The lists of the sons are very interesting, I agree. But like Steve noted, there appears to be no distinction between them, except for Joseph and Benjamin, who were Jacob's youngest and favorite sons. That seems to have been a personal choice by Jacob, not a social practice or rule.

Hope everyone enjoyed this and got something out of it. I'd love to hear your comments and questions!


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

"Wife" here is being used as an infinitive. It is being used as a kind of verb. Rather like, make a woman of her, or use her like a woman.

Hi Victor,

Perhaps the use of "ishshah" as a verb in these passages mean not that he will "make a woman of her", but that he would have them in the manner that a man would have (or "own" in the sense of husbandship) a woman/wife. I don't think it necessarily means that Jacob receiving them from his wives would "make them into women" or that he would "use them" like women.


John for Christ

 

[VictorLepanto]

"Wife" here is being used as an infinitive. It is being used as a kind of verb. Rather like, make a woman of her, or use her like a woman.

Hi Victor,

Perhaps the use of "ishshah" as a verb in these passages mean not that he will "make a woman of her", but that he would have them in the manner that a man would have (or "own" in the sense of husbandship) a woman/wife. I don't think it necessarily means that Jacob receiving them from his wives would "make them into women" or that he would "use them" like women.


John for Christ

The terms I offered as examples to explain the Hebrew idiom weren't meant as an interpretation of Hebrew language but as intermediate terms familiar to an English speaking audience.

The most exact translation of the Hebrew would be more like, "She gave her slave to her husband to woman." We say "man up" in English, "to woman" has no meaning for us. They are the slaves of Jacob's wives. This the point of the whole matter of their bearing "on the knees" of the legal wives. The chidren are credited to the wives accounts, the slave women are not elevated to wifehood. The children are elevated to full legitimacy by the owners of their actual, biological mothers. It needs to be noted, the English term own has no equivolent in Hebrew. You can't say this house is mine. You'd have to say something like, "The house is to me."

Something like, "He'yeh ha-bayt leh-cha." "Leh" being the Hebrew preposition equivolent to...well..."to." Thus, "leh-cha" means, "to me." Sorta like saying God gave this to me, rather then saying "This is mine."

 

[VictorLepanto]

According to the reading of the account of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar, Sarah had no authority over Hagar, until Abraham later gave it to her. This indicates that the "giving" confers ownership. However, within the Law, concubines are full wives--the only difference POSSIBLY being that their children don't have inheritance rights, though this is debatable.

Abraham simply told Sarah she could do as she pleased w/ Hagar. Sarah certainly did have authority over Hagar, otherwise she wouldn't have been able to give Hagar to Abraham in the 1st place. Concubines are not full wives, or they'd be called wives. The children of the concubines are simply given gifts, they do not get a full inheritance. The whole estate of Abraham goes to Isaac ALONE.

 

[Tlaloc]

the Hebrews have no distinct word for wife.

This is a big part of the issue with discussing polygamy with a modern audience. The thing is, marriage as we know it doesn't exist in the Old Testiment. The extreme and obvious case for this would be that 'no one was married in a church' (duh). While many people look for patters to define by modern standards what qualifies as a wife or not. They find similarities for sure, but the exact parrelel does not exist.

As it pretains to this topic. Bilhah and Zilpah (or Bil and Zippy for short ) where:

In a sexual relationship with Isreal
Conceiving and raising Children by him
Commited to him in that they where not allowed to be touched by another man
Entitled to be provided for by him

They where not free to say no
They where not free to have rights to their own children, they where borne in the name of their mistresses
They did not have any kind of formal ceremony

This relationship was not sin for either of them.

So then, if they where actual wives is subjective to what you think an actual wife is. Objectively they where Israels women as much as Rachel and Leah where. The only substantial difference was their status as slaves.

If we look at the term 'married' in the old testament it comes from the concepts of 'to take a woman' or 'a woman who is a mans' depending on the context, if the translators are considered objective than Bill and Zippy are objectively Isreals wives, if the translators are considered subjective than everyone's view of the topic will be similarly subjective. The legal distinctions are because of their social status, they are slaves, it doesn't change that they are Israels wives (they are his women). The union just didn't change their social status (as it often does today).

P.S.
Even different children of the same wife are given different inheritances in scripture (firstborn son) and today children are generally given different inheritances as parents see fit regardless of their exact parentage. The inheritances discussion doesn't prove\disprove weather they should count as wives or not.

 

[VictorLepanto]

the Hebrews have no distinct word for wife.

This is a big part of the issue with discussing polygamy with a modern audience. The thing is, marriage as we know it doesn't exist in the Old Testiment. The extreme and obvious case for this would be that 'no one was married in a church' (duh). While many people look for patters to define by modern standards what qualifies as a wife or not. They find similarities for sure, but the exact parrelel does not exist.

As it pretains to this topic. Bilhah and Zilpah (or Bil and Zippy for short ) where:

In a sexual relationship with Isreal
Conceiving and raising Children by him
Commited to him in that they where not allowed to be touched by another man
Entitled to be provided for by him

They where not free to say no
They where not free to have rights to their own children, they where borne in the name of their mistresses
They did not have any kind of formal ceremony

This relationship was not sin for either of them.

So then, if they where actual wives is subjective to what you think an actual wife is. Objectively they where Israels women as much as Rachel and Leah where. The only substantial difference was their status as slaves.

If we look at the term 'married' in the old testament it comes from the concepts of 'to take a woman' or 'a woman who is a mans' depending on the context, if the translators are considered objective than Bill and Zippy are objectively Isreals wives, if the translators are considered subjective than everyone's view of the topic will be similarly subjective. The legal distinctions are because of their social status, they are slaves, it doesn't change that they are Israels wives (they are his women). The union just didn't change their social status (as it often does today).

P.S.
Even different children of the same wife are given different inheritances in scripture (firstborn son) and today children are generally given different inheritances as parents see fit regardless of their exact parentage. The inheritances discussion doesn't prove\disprove weather they should count as wives or not.

While it is certainly true that the same word ishah is used for any woman & for a wife, this doesn't mean the two concepts are not distinguished. The wife of a man is referred to as "the woman of ______." She is the woman that belongs to that man, they are espoused together. A concubine is not a wife & here children do not get a full inheritance.

A 1st born son, (not necessarily the actual 1st but the one who becomes the head of family on the father's death) does get a different inheritance but that difference is defined in Genesis. Jacob offers the "double portion" to Joseph. Joseph insists both portions go to his two sons. It is like this, if a man has an older & a younger son; his inheritance is divided into 3 portions. The older, assuming he is given official status as a 1st born, gets two portions & the younger gets one. True heirs through a true wife get a clear percentage of the estate. The Children of concubines do not; Abraham's other two women, Hagar & Kiturah; only gets gifts. It is clear only Isaac gets the estate. We can reveiw those passages if you wish.

Bilhah & Zilpah are only called the female slaves of Leah & Rebecca. It is clear that the children of the two concubines are credited as Leah & Rebecca's children. I've already posted those passages. Everything is cleary defined in the Bible. So, any attempt to hide your doctrines in the thickets of confusion are fruitless.

Let us be clear about the actual record of the patriarchs re: polygamy:
Adam -1 wife
Seth & Cain -1 wife each
Lamech -the 1st bigamist in the Bible, he is also murderer in the line of Cain & 6 generations removed from Adam & Paradise
Noah - 1 wife
Abraham - 1 wife; 2 concubines, 1 before Sarah died & Ishmael was rejected by God, 1 only after Sarah died
Isaac - 1 wife
Jacob -2 official wives but by trickery. God rejected the 1st born by Leah in favor of Joseph, Rebecca's 1st born.
Joseph -1 wife

Finally, Moses has only one wife, Zipporah. She is also a descendent of Keturah, as a Midianite. Thus the original marriage of the widowed Abraham to Keturah is confirmed in Moses. The union w/ Hagar is rejected, no descendent of Ishmael ever enters into the line of Jacob.

The only Biblical patriarch to enter into a bigamist union is Jacob. His own wives call this situation a war between the two women.

It is obvious to objective & systematic contextual analysis of scriptures, polygamy is vehemently demonstrated to be illegitimate, of purely human origins, & is only a result of the fall.

A true Christian, if he holds the Bible as God's sacred word; will utterly denounce & reject the sinful practice of polygamy.

 

[Tlaloc]

The wife of a man is referred to as "the woman of ______."

'

I said this... But it doesn't have to be stated in just that formula, as long a she is his woman they are together. If it had to be stated just like that there would not be that many wives in scripture...

Gen 30:4 And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her.

She gave Bilhah her slave to be Jacobs woman and he went into her. Thats pretty straightforward.

Gen 30:9 When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife.

She took Zilpah her maid and gave her to be Jacobs woman.

Even more straightforward... In fact both cases are the same terminology used in

Gen 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me,

Or where those two not married either?

In fact, this terminology is used repeatedly throughout the old testament. You're being blatantly and willfully ignorant here.

After all, in you're view Adam and Eve where not married, it is never said Eve is the woman of Adam. The closes you have is Gen 4 where Adam knew Eve Woman. This formula "the woman of ______.", only appears by way of introduction or when the wife's name is not known (as in the case of Noah). We define a woman as a wife when she is his, how that is told to us varies from case to case.

By the way, do you allow concubines as long as there is only one wife? It seems separating the topics doesn't help you anyway...

 

[Anonymous]

Finally, Moses has only one wife, Zipporah.

No...Moses was also married to an Ethiopian woman....and please don't say she and Zipporah were the same woman. Zipporah was the daughter of Jethro (from the land of Midian). Midian and Ethiopia were not the same region.

The only Biblical patriarch to enter into a bigamist union is Jacob.

What about King David ?????

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Finally, Moses has only one wife, Zipporah.

No...Moses was also married to an Ethiopian woman....and please don't say she and Zipporah were the same woman. Zipporah was the daughter of Jethro (from the land of Midian). Midian and Ethiopia were not the same region.

The only Biblical patriarch to enter into a bigamist union is Jacob.

What about King David ?????

Blessings,
Fairlight

What about Abraham?

What about that guy in Ezekiel 23 who was the guy in Ezekiel 23 who impregnated two sisters, do you think that guy in Ezekiel 23 was a sinner?

 

[VictorLepanto]

Gen 30:4 And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her.

She gave Bilhah her slave to be Jacobs woman and he went into her. Thats pretty straightforward.

Gen 30:9 When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife.

No. It is not "straightforward."

1st, I believe that Eve is specifically referred to as "his woman" in 4:1. You need to review the original Hebrew manuscript. The Possessive suffix of Cholem is clearly attached to the word Ishet; this following the Yada verb which means "to know," in the Biblical sense. The most literal translation of the Hebrew would translate as, "& the man, He knew his woman & she conceive, & she bore Cain..."

As for Sarah, she is 1st & foremost called Abraham's wife. No one else is called like her. If you reference her 1st citation in Gen. 11:29 it reads:

veh-yehkach Avram veh-Nachor L'hehm, nasheet: Shaym ayshet-Avram Sarai, veh-ayshet-Nachor Milchah, Bat-Haran, avi-Milchah vah-avi Ischah.

[or in English]

& Avram & Nahor took to them women: the name of the woman of Avram is Sarai, & the name of woman of Nahor is Milchah, daughter of Haran, Father of Milchah & father of Ischah.

Clearly Sarah, then still Sarah, is "the woman of Avram."

If you examine Gen. 16, where Hagar is introduced, the contrast could hardly be more explicit:

vs. 1& Sarai, woman of Avram didn't bear to him, & to her [that is Sarah] was a slavegirl of Egypt, she was called Hagar.
vs. 2 & Sarai said to Avram, "Please notice, Adonai keeps me from bearing; please go into Myslavegirl [shiphchah], maybe I will be built up from her, & Avram listened to the voice of Sarai.

Once again, Hagar is a slave to the wife, she does not belong to Avram. The child is supposed to be credited to Sarai's account, not Hagar's.

The original Hebrew is very clear about who belongs to whom.

Also it is Sarai's voice that Avram is listening to. Like it is Laban's idea for Jacob to be married to both daughters. God was NOT the author of this confusion. Just like God is never the author of the confusion of polygamy. Just like He is not the author of YOUR confusion on this issue. Polygamy is the tradition of men, or in this the tradition of the woman of Avram.